federal housing administration has received close to 2 billion dollars from the treasury department to stabilize its fiscal position. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning, it's monday, november 4, 2013 and here are your headlines -- it is one day to election day in several states and political watchers will look for clues for future congressional races in tomorrow's outcome in key battlefields including virginia. political the ongoing battle over the rollout of the affordable care act continue to play out on the sunday shows yesterday. we will get to those stories this morning on "the washington journal." first, we will talk about a bill that would bill -- that would ban discrimination in the

workplace that faces a key senate procedural vote today. we will hear your thoughts on the employment nondiscrimination act and what you think it means when it comes to public opinion on gay rights in america today. give us a call -- with us ono catch up all your favorite social media pages. you can also e-mail us. good monday morning to you. i want to take you to the headline in today's "wall street journal."

vote to procedural proceed to debate is happening today. here is the story in today's "new york times."

we will be looking at more from that story later but here's the front page of today's "arizona republic." over to the "concorde monitor," the hometown paper of senator kellyayotte.

we are getting your opinion on the employment nondiscrimination act. also the status of public opinion on gay rights in the united states, some comments are already coming in on our facebook agent morning. -- our facebook page this morning. that is from facebook and we want to hear your comments, our phone lines are open on this subject. we will go first to chuck from

charleston, west virginia, on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to thank my senator, senator joe manchin for finally throwing his support behind the employment nondiscrimination act. for me, it boils down to basically the fact that straight people have never had to worry about being fired for their -- from their jobs or kicked out of their rental properties or turned away from businesses or, of course, denied the right to marry the person they love solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. i don't think it is asking too much that gay people should not have to worry about this either. one of your facebook comments said it interferes with employers right to hire the people they want to. haves the whole reason we civil rights laws. i suppose we could go back to

the days when employers could say i am not going to hire any jewish people or restaurants could say we are not owing to serve blacks in here. that's what our modern several rights laws are based on and i don't think it is asking too includedpeople to be on that based on their sexual orientation. host: we will go to john from polaski, virginia, on our line for independents. caller: good morning and thank you for having me on. i think it is a terrible thing that there is such a discrimination in the world today. i think everybody should sit back and relax and look at the fact that we are all part of the same race, the human race, and we all have to work together. otherwise, we are pretty much doomed. a little bit more from that "wall street journal"

story, talking about the politics of this and how it might split some in the republican party. that's today's "wall street journal." we will look at more of that and the editorials on both sides of this issue. first, let's point out a column that was posted last night on " huffington post" by barack obama.

the president says they should be judged only by getting their work done. that's the president huffington

post piece that was posted last night. -- there are plenty of editorials on the other side of this issue. this is rum "the washington times"

we are taking your calls and comments this morning. donald is up next from michigan on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. man i am a 74-year-old old that has probably seen a love of life. the -- a love of life. -- a lot of life. i have a cousin who is gay. not wantve rights do to witness certain things right in front of me all the time. military as i used to be and i'm taking a shower, i do not wish to be in the shower with a gay person. that is my right. that should be a part of a nondiscrimination against me. i don't force my beliefs on other people.

they should not force theirs on me. thank you. host: also on our independent line is robert from pennsylvania, good morning. hello, i just want to say that in reality, no one has rights at this point in america. i worked at walmart for 10 years and i got fired for reporting of a manager of a handicapped girl. they could hear her crying but the employees were all afraid. the situation to gross corporate corruption is so bad that millions of employees across the country are afraid to even speak up when they witness something like abuse of the handicapped. when i spoke up, i was severely persecuted and lost my job.

when during the police statement, they lied to federal investigators, i had three lawyers and the congressman and andpolice all of my side there was nothing i could do. situationdoes that impact your thinking about this bill that faces a procedural vote today in the united states senate question mar? if the gays said rights, they would have what the rest of the don't have. right now it is a pitiful situation in america. tyranny going on at walmart, anyways. we all need to have our rights that we have lost.

it's a pitiful situation that has gone on where we already have no civil rights, no human rights, no chance of justice across-the-board. host: here is a tweet -- be reading or twitter, facebook, and e-mail comments and our phone lines are also open on this subject. obamaed that president had a piece in the huffington post yesterday. abouts a piece talking the president's post.

back to the phones, our republican line, bob is from virginia, good morning. caller: good morning, i just

don't think it's right because if they force christian peoples who know that homosexual people are wrong, how can they force christian people to operate and have to hire people like that? they need to change their life and accept the lord and change from there. you mentioned the election in virginia and i hope people will vote for ken kuchen ellie -- cucinelli. we need jobs. the jobs are real bad in this area. host: we will get to the virginia race but on the subject of the employment nondiscrimination act, this is a politico story from the end of september.

do you think that poll is accurate? caller: it might be accurate, i don't know. i know that christians will not -- if we haveody a republican that runs for president and he supports gay and the gay jobs bill, we will absolutely stay at home. we will not vote for him. i don't care who it is. the christian people will stay home, the real christians. host: that's bob from pennington gap, west virginia. the conservative family research council put out a statement on this procedural vote in the

senate today. they said -- they say the law would force christian bookstores and other toes -- and other places change their identity -- gender. to be hired. making matters worse, perceived gender identity status does not require sex change surgery. enda allow some biological males that claim to be females appear nude in front of females

in bathrooms and lockers. situations like this have been reported in several states with enda-like laws. that is the statement from the family research council that came out on october 30, last wednesday. back to the phones, lois is on our line for democrats from wisconsin. , i am a first-ou time caller and thank you for c- span. i am really upset by several of the calls that have come in around prejudice and employers being discriminatory. it is rampant. one of the callers said that if people were straight, there would not be a problem or something of that nature. on the other hand, there are a lot of straight people that are black that are discriminated against, overweight, and the list is endless. -- one saiders

something about the federal government not interfering. i think the federal government, it's about time they interfere on the act of discrimination and jobs. and ivery, very existing hope it's going to be changed. thank you for having c-span. is next from centreville, virginia, on our line for independents. we are talking about the employment nondiscrimination act, what are your thoughts? caller: thanks for taking my call. i think we need to be cautious when it comes to being opposed to something because it has been labeled as discriminatory or intolerant. i think those terms have taken on a meaning that is very harmful. our society really depends on discrimination and intolerance on many levels. seena to discriminate be

-- between the right side of the road am they left side of the love and those are acceptable forms of discrimination. i think that relates to this situation because we are not really potentially aware of the unintended consequences that a law like this would yield in , the potentiality for religious institutions who are homosexual marriage and homosexual lifestyles. for them to be required, perhaps this law would require, to hire folks like that. i think that would be a violation of their freedom of association. i think there is a lot of civil liberties problems. host: you talk about the issue of prejudice in the united states.

on twitter -- what do you think about that to eat? caller: i'm not so sure about that. i want to be clear that i love my homosexual friends and i think that showing true human love towards everyone is required and expected and should be ideal. i think we need to be careful about blanket discrimination and seeing discrimination -- if you tack the adjective onto everything, it suddenly becomes bad. the president of the naacp, i'm guessing, he should be an african american and i don't think we should prevent that sort of thing from happening. or a conference for pacific island americans in business -- it would be very destructive if we were not allowed to have categories in our society. this also brings up the

religious exemption issue built into this law. more on that from "the washington blade." it calls itself america's leading gay new source.

issue that the "wall street journal" story brings up is that the law would follow 22 of fortune 500 companies would have similar policies. the companies that has

such qualities is apple, inc and the ceo of apple, tim cook had a piece in today's "washington journal" talking about the non-employment discrimination act. the phone lines are open. if you have comments or questions on this subject, linda is up from texas on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, i have seen cases where the police have

taken down license plate numbers of cars outside gay bars and turned them in so people lost their jobs like if they were thaters or other jobs people had worries about. that is one of the few places you can meet other people like yourself. ato, they do the same thing x-rated places. church members will frequently go out and report on members of their church or community who go to these places. as the church worrying about having to be hell to those standards, they get a free ride on these things all the time. thes just like with exception that president bush gave them from the get-go that allows them to get federal contract money and discriminate

at the same time when no one else is allowed to do that. host: lisa is on our line for independents from pittsburgh, oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning, i think we need to separate these two things. race and gender have nothing to do with homosexuality. that is a moral issue, not a race or what you are born. tack it on asg to a writer so it passes through. people who believe in the bible don't believe in homosexuality and the gays. we just do not. we have that right. this country was founded on freedom of religion. i have a right to think that if i send my child to school, she's not going to have a lesbian teacher walked into her dressing while she'spe changing. i have a right to think that i've i go to the ladies restroom, everybody in their thanks they are a woman.

god did not make a mistake. he does not make mistakes. would -- we are born a man or woman. host: what do you think about this poll that 68% of americans support the legislation? caller: absolutely not come up polls are taken how they want that poll to come out for their own political reason. it is every poll, not just this one. i do not believe in polls. i don't think they are accurate. everyone who goes out to take a poll is trying to hold a position. that poll will reflect their position. host: all right, monica says -- we will go to tracy from hagerstown, maryland on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. this is alllieve

smoke and mirrors. ,hat we have now in our country it does not matter. if someone doesn't like you, they can fine you for any reason. aey can fine you for having democratic sticker when they are a republican. they can fine you for any reason. all they have to say is we don't like you. it works. host: you don't think this act will do much? i think it means they can fire you and say you have poor job performance even though you have a wonderful job performance. i agree with gay rights. it's just that i believe we put andthese laws into effect in truth, it does not help. employers are at well. they don't have to have a reason. similar issue,

this story in today's "washington times."

we are talking about a bill coming before the senate to clear at key procedural hurdle that will allow debate to move forward on the employment nondiscrimination act. we are talking with you about that and reading tweets and e- mails and we will go to joseph now from cornwall, new york, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span, by the way. --ave a comment as far as gays go, i have no opinion on that. most of the discrimination i can

employment and i have been around a long time, there have been jobs and most of the discrimination is in small business. if you only employ three or four people, it's normal for a person andant somebody familiar somebody would be your type of person. you might not like the looks of somebody. it's a hell of a thing to say but in small business, it seems they have more rights because i am the owner and this is my business. that's about all i can say. front,n the campaign here is a commentary piece from "the portland press herald."

that's the congressman for the second district running for the 2014 gubernatorial election in maine. front,2013 election

several elections are happening around the country on tuesday in here is the front page of the metro section of today's "washington post." there is the president talking with candidate terry mcauliffe. that's the president with terry mcauliffe there. " the washington post" notes --

front," theampaign wall street journal" notes -- you can read more about that poll in that stories in today's "wall street journal." we have about 10 minutes left to talk about this issue of the employment not as commission

act. that will be coming up for a vote this afternoon. the senate will be live on c- span two at 2 p.m. if you want to watch the vote. we are talking about it this morning on "the washington journal." rick is from arkansas on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, besides being a moral issue, it's a health issue and i don't know how many people want to work with somebody with aids or who could have aids. i hear it is rampant in the homosexual community. i have not heard that brought up yet. that's about it. from colorado on our line for democrats. good morning. personally, i really don't think we can bring religion into this issue because

it is not part of our government. i don't think it 2000 year old fairy tale place in our government. hand, we are opening businesses up for a lot of liability for allowing men to go into women's dressing rooms. this does not sound like it is well thought out. there is too much liability for a business to have to control access. you cannot have men in a women's dressing room without opening up the possibility of them lying why they are there. i don't think this sounds like it has been very well worded. we will go to harold from detroit, michigan, on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: hello, how are you doing this morning?

i'm from detroit where they have -- put a lot into effect that you don't have to work with african-americans. i am a union carpenter. on the job, i have been spent on -- been spit on. slipped overnoose my head while i was working. i have had a pallet pushed on me from an upper floor that could have killed me. i have had a 14 foot letter dropped on me. it knocked me out cold. my union steward picked me up and waved to the guy that did it and left me bleeding. things need to change in michigan because they are building the whole city over again and african-americans do not get one or two days work out here. host: how has that experience made you think about this all coming up before the senate

today, the non-employment dims commission act -- discrimination act. thatr: they need to pass and look at michigan. there are some things up here that are really wrong. people should be in jail, period. stories in other this first 45 minutes of "the washington journal." a continued clashed over the nsa -- spying leaks from edward snowden. this is the front page of "the financial times." the issue came up yesterday with

the heads of the intelligence committee in the house and senate. they were asked if perhaps they would agree with some calls that have been made for edward snowden to receive clemency if he came home to the u.s. to testify in an investigation of the nsa. we will play a little bit of what chairman mike rogers and senator dianne feinstein said in that interview. [video clip] this was an all, american, contractor who was trusted and he stripped our system. if he wasopportunity a whistleblower, to pick up the phone and call the house intelligence committee, the senate intelligence committee and say i have some information you ought to see. maybeld certainly see him both together, maybe separately, but we would have seen him and we would have looked at that information. that did not happen. now he has done this an

armistice service to our country. norma's disservice in this country and i believe in no clemency. >> you suggest he should be prosecuted. >> that's correct. >> it's a question as to what he knew about the material he still and who he worked with. the russians are not allowing him to stay in the country of russia because they think he is just a nice guy. there is clearly more to this story. i think it is terrible. if he wants to come back and own up to the responsibility of the fact that he took and stole information and violated his oath and took the classified information that, by the way, has allowed three different terrorist organizations, affiliates of al qaeda, to change the way they communicate, i would be happy to have that discussion with him but he needs to own up with what he has done and if he wants to talk through what he did it, that would be the appropriate time and the appropriate way to do it. >> you would not be willing to

give him any kind of clemency, i take it? >> no, i don't see any reason. i would not do that. he needs to come back and own up. heads of thes the intelligence communities on capitol hill yesterday on the cbs show "face the nation." . is the front page of "the usa today." this is on the shooting at lax on friday. this is the "wall street journal" story on the same subject.

you can read more on that in today's "wall street journal." i've got time for a few more comments on the subject of the employment nondiscrimination act. we've got a few e-mails on this subject. v now from fort wayne, indiana,, on our line for independents. caller: good morning.

i want to comment on the schools where they are trying to make the laws for the kids to go to the same restroom. out there, i think that's terrible. i think they should write down the names of the people that have come up with this law are trying to come up with this law or whoever wrote it or what organization that put these people's name out in the light like they do little kids. maybe we can kick them out of office. thatwoman that spoke said god does not make mistakes. she is right. people should read their bible more. --t: aprons equals bliss ignorance equals bliss -- we will go to bridget now from fairfield, iowa, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning and i love

c-span and thank you for being available to the public. my comment is about the apple article you read. the article and i like what they had to say. i think they have a well- balanced view. i thought the wording was excellent. also, in regard to the bathroom -- and lockers -- i think the best way to not discriminate against all people is for everyone -- if you are born male, stay in the male restroom. if you are female, stay in the female restroom. this way, it does not force the preference on someone else. if this law is enforced, i see there needs to be a conduct code for people getting extra

protection from the government. to say i am more valued than you and to say that i honor you bite me controlling my conduct with you. i think these are clearly great thoughts, a well-balanced approach, and that's basically what i wanted to say. host: she brought up the apple article, and editorial, and opinion peas written by tim cook, the ceo of apple, inc. that is in today's "washington journal." that will do it for our first segment and up next, we will have william hoagland join us, the senior vice president of the high partisan policy center and longtime budget committee staffer and we will talk about the status of budget talks on capitol hill and later, julie appleby of kaiser health news will join us to talk about why

some insurers are dropping coverage for some americans. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> i'm surrounded by just a few of the items they kept mami on the 10 best dressed list when she was first lady. she worked with one of her favorite designers for pursuits and a where. this is the outfit she wore to the formal opening of the saint lawrence seaway where she and ike met queen elizabeth and prince philip. another custom designed dress is referred to as the eisenhower toile which is a cotton fabric.

symboludes the five-star of five-star general eisenhower. these are a few examples of her day dresses. she was very fond of the color pink and wore it in many different shades and styles. jackie kennedy is well-known for the little black dress and here are two examples of mamie's favorite little black dress for it she said she would never dress like an old lady. these gallons she were well into her 70s and 80s show her love of bright colors and wild fabrics. eisenhower,dy mamie tonight live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span c-span three and also on c-span radio and www.c-span.org. tyne tenets that is important is universal service and that's the idea that all americans should have access to comparable and affordable telecommunication services.

as we have gone through this evolution over the last several years of knowing from telephone service to a broadband world, how do we ensure that rural americans have access to those same services and the same applications that come across the networks? big focus for us legislatively and with the fcc talking about them about how important it is to maintain universal service and what that means and how that mechanism has allowed folks and rural high- cost areas to have comparable services. >> making the jump from copper wire to farber optics in -- you fiber optics tonight on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it's true the government shutdown is over the country is no longer flirting with an imminent potential default, anyone who believes the physical wars are over might be mistaken. they have been put on hold pending the outcome of a house

and senate conference committee that convened last week. here to discuss that effort is william hoagland, the senior vice president at the bipartisan policy center. today"dline of "usa talks about low expectations for a deal coming out of this conference committee. do you agree with that? guest: i think the assumption that we were going to reach some grand bargain, a large deficit package over the next 10 years, i think it's clear the expectations for that happened lowered dramatically. host:why? guest: the differences between the house and senate are dramatic. it is like we are on different planets even though we are in the same universe for it the difference on the house position in terms of the resolution they passed back in the spring which had no tax increases, no revenue increases, assumed to the repeal of the affordable care act.

it is the antithesis to the senate position. thesenate budge was resolution they passed. they had increased references -- revenues and a differences are so great it is unlikely there will be any kind of agreement to raise revenues because it could not pass in the house of representatives. host: does that doom this effort to failure? guest: now, if people had expectations that this would be a large deficit reduction package achieved by the hope for a deadline of december 13, i think that is off the table. i think there is a real possibility, not of a grand bargain, but of a bargain that will be granted that we got a bargain at all. the american public believes that congress is dysfunctional and cannot achieve anything.

at a minimum, it seems there is a good possibility that both mrs. murray and mr. ryan can come together on some sort of package that will show that the house and senate can work together in a minimal way. it will not be a grand bargain but the fact that we have not been able to achieve a budget resolution for the last four years, this would be something at least to be respected that the congress could, even a divided congress, could come to an agreement on a budget. host: we are talking about the budget conference that just began meeting last week with william hoagland of the bipartisan policy center. he is here to answer your questions and our phone lines are open. andcan also send us e-mails tweets or post in our facebook page. the phone lines are on the screen. said themr., you december 13 deadline is for the

committee to present its final report? guest: yes, the house passed a budget resolution under regular order back in the spring. the senate passed a budget resolution, a blueprint, for how congress should spend their tax the money going forward. billouse bill, the senate 02 conference or are supposed to go to conference but we have not gone to conference for the last four years of this is an achievement in and of itself. that came about with the crisis back in early october. the house and senate will go to conference and hopefully they can resolve their differences and come up with a conference agreement and that conference agreement goes back to the house and hopefully passes the house then passes the senate and stops. this is one thing people may not understand. it is a blueprint for guiding the legislative process. tides theueprint that committees of the first -- that

guides the committees so the first up is to put together a blueprint to guide the committees on how to proceed. gets tightiming after december 13. december 16, congress begins its recess and january 15 is when the current continuing resolution expires. is it possible to move something that quickly? guest: it's very possible should you achieve a blueprint, a conference agreement on a budget 2014ution for fiscal year and you have that adopted as a blueprint, i think that will set the level of spending as it relates to what the level of spending would be as opposed to a continuing resolution or dropping back down to the sequester level on january 15. it is possible to have a blueprint. if you have an agreement between the house and the senate, i think that lowers the rhetoric a lot and we can move forward.

we will pass legislation to fund the government and move forward. host: what is the next debt ceiling deadline? guest: the aggregation of all our debt from the beginning to today is february 7. we have suspended our debt ceiling until february 7. it is not like the beginning of a new fiscal year where everything comes to an and there it -- where everything comes to an end. we will allow the treasury to continue to have cash flow to have them move beyond. we believe the bipartisan policy center -- it is not february the seventh that we will be back in the soup with not having enough cash. it will probably be the end of february, early march. we will face the statutory debt limit and a cash flow problem. host: for folks who don't know

the bipartisan policy center, what is it? guest: it was established in 2007 by four former leaders of the united states senate, senator dole, senator baker, senator mitchell, and senator daschle. and basicallyfit an organization that tries to drive toward principled solutions and reasonable negotiation to bring together various partisan individuals. it is a bipartisan organization. issues as itjor relates to fiscal issues, immigration recently, health issues -- a number of issues we bring together. a lot of former members of commons -- we find some reason to come together that divide the country. worked as aoagland

former republican staff director for the senate budget committee from 1986-2003. he is here to answer your questions on this subject of the budget conference. from eugene, lee oregon, on our line for democrats. caller: thank you very much. i have always appreciated the work of the bipartisan policy center. say that in this tragic time right now, moderates in both parties are not being heard. suggesting to are the leaders -- i know this specifically because i contacted patty murray's office for different times this year. i have yet to get a response at all from anything. i have sent suggestions. offers of how --

people on disability like myself could gain more respect publicly by taking a little less of the gift that the american people time,o us and at the same realize that the social security disability part of social weurity was created before had millionaire athletes and millionaires ceo's of insurance companies. we balance both sides of the coin. disabled people give up some of the money, we also have to be able to tax to a higher salary cap, maybe up to $2 million rather than the corridor of a million dollars that gets taxed right now. guest: first of all, thank you very much for the call. you are unique in the fact that you are willing to put forward a reduction in the government

disability payments he received. i congratulate you on that. i cannot speak for chairman murray's staff and why she has not responded to your suggestions. that is not my responsibility. i would say thank you for complement in the bipartisan policy center. it is difficult in this town to find bipartisanship. it has been my experience in this town -- i have been here for longer than i should be -- it seems the pendulum swings and i think there is a real will see a that we movement back toward more moderation in terms of policies as we go forward. i will also say that one real issue you raised which i think people have to remember is the social security disability trust fund itself expires in terms of its funding by the end of 2015 -- 2016. the issue of social security disability funding will be an will focus on that

and congress will have to focus on that in the upcoming next session of congress. senator murray is the head committee, the lead negotiator for democrats in this conference committee. her counterpart guest: is chairman paul ryan. these are budget committees. with thees get upset media and the press saying that this is unique that we are having a special committee. the way the process is supposed to work. the house passes a budget, the senate passes a budget, and we conference and that's what is going on now. host: is the makeup of this committee unique? it is 22 senators, seven house members. guest: no. the bottom line is that if they

were to reach an agreement, then they have to get an majority of signatures. it does not matter what the numbers are. in the house.s republicans control the house. at the end of the day, the majority of those members have to sign the conference agreement for to become action. that is december 13. host: friday, the 13th. dallas, texas is on the republican line. caller: good morning. that budget that the senate put together be the first one they have put together in four years? the firstis conference agreement on a budget resolution. i have it right in front of me. april of 2009. passed --ve they've have they passed the budget?

there has not been an agreement on the blueprint going forward and when we have reached that particular state, what happens is that we operate on a continuing resolution. -- tonot have a halfway control the long-term deficits. we do operate, but we operate without any thing that an individual or family would have -- a budget or a blueprint. caller: that is now what i am asking. i do not think they put a budget forward. budget,hey did pass a they just did not go to conference with it. host: we're going to indiana on our independent line. go ahead. yes, i have a few

comments. people -- you work overtime and everything else, and at a certain point, you have bills, at the utility eating, everything else. cut backs, you have to as far as you can cut back or go out and find another job. the government needs to work in this direction to cut where we can. also, let's look at more revenue coming in. the working people of this country are squeezed. this, pullingat the cap off of the taxation --

their earnings for shall soul -- the earnings for social security revenue?te on i will just listen to your comments. host: thank you. guest: thank you for being a hoosier and for being from indiana. i am originally from indiana. i do not have the information on taking up the cap on taxation. it will affect the benefits in the future too. it is not just a revenue increase. taxation also increases the benefits that are provided for the future. having said that, i agree with you fully. the federal government, just like businesses and families and universities,

we have to control our spending. we have to balance it with the revenues. the difficulty here has been finding that balance. that is the reason why we are talking in the house and senate about finding that balance between additional revenues, if there are any additional , and additional ways of raising revenues. host: are there some areas of agreement? guest: there has been some suggestion that there might be ways in which receipts, not fvenues, such things as example.n increasing the fee is to public places like fashion -- like national parks. i do not think these will raise

that much revenue in the long run. back to the spending side and the control of spending that is critical here. we will have to focus on this. haveifficulty is where we controlled spending and have limited spending. those are areas of the future. those are investments in infrastructure, education, science, and technology. when you add in the interest of the public debt, two thirds of the budget is medicare, medicaid, and social security. is and where the money that is where we going to make progress in the future. host: we will go to carl in chicago, illinois on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. you are just saying something about a balance between spending and revenue. i think you have it wrong.

this is where the problem is. in 2000, we had a balanced budget. republicans chose to take all of the surplus and have tax cuts. they say that we could have a war. they said it would not cost us a dime. it cost us $1 trillion. then we also had the recession. americans lost three percent of their net worth. we lost gdp. this probably comes to maybe about a couple trillion dollars. this is not about the entitlements. not that they cannot be reforms. our principal problem is because we did not raise the taxes to

pay for these things. it is not because we were spending too much. you cannot buy a yacht and take six months off of work. those were not the problems. the problem is that the republicans took money and do not want to acknowledge it. host: thank you. guest: thank you for your question and i think you have a very valid point here. a second.k for this is my background. in the spring of 2001, when george bush the second came into office, there was a projection of the surplus. you are right. of $6 a projection trillion. this was not just by the incoming administration, it was also the defeated gore campaign.

the federal reserve system also projected this. what happened was, in the spring of 2001, congress -- in a bipartisan way, said we should return some of that. it is hard to believe, but surpluses can be as damaging as deficits. they decided to return some of that surplus to the american public. they returned it in the form of a tax cut. that was a 10 year tax cut. what we did not anticipate, of course, was what happened on september 11, 2001. we went from surpluses to deficits almost overnight. the tax cuts remained in effect. you are right that there should have been some revisiting of the tax cuts that went into effect. those tax cuts also allowed us to avoid of major recession. host: you bring up deficits.

how much motivation is there right now to get a grant deal done? weather in this effort or a future effort -- with the u.s. just having posted its lowest deficit. guest: you're right. we just ended fiscal year 2013. of $680a deficit billion. i believe that is what the figure was. that was a significant 30% reduction from the previous two- year. -- from the previous year. this is taking some pressure off. eggs are improving. i would point out that part of the reason the deficit came down so significantly is that revenues went up 13%. spending went down two percent. the combination resulted in the deficit coming down. the difficulty is that, while

that is a good sign in the near- term, all projections going forward indicate that we will continue to receive deficits coming back in the future. more important than the annual deficit, from my perspective, is the fact that the accumulation remain will continue to well into the 71% of gdp in the future. this is because come as the economy starts to recover, interest rates will go up. paying the interest on that debt -- that is the concern us budgeteers have. it is good and it is positive,

but it is the long-term risk that we are facing with the accumulation of debt. host: i wait to focus on paul ryan for a second. he was part of the simpson- bowles commission. he voted against it. was not part of that 2011 supercommittee effort. how do you think democrats see him as they are entering these negotiations? today prefer him versus john boehner to work with? in fairness, i have to point out that the chairman was a fellow staffer with me in the united states senate when he worked for the senator and wisconsin. we work together on the senate budget committee. i think that yes, chairman ryan definitely has a conservative focus in terms of controlling spending. canas an outlook that we control spending going forward. he focuses correctly on those issues.

he isk that yes, dedicated to his position. as is chairman murray. i think that they look to him as one of the budget experts of the house. they can work with him to find a common ground. host: how do republicans see patty murray? would they prefer to work with her over here he read? guest: that is a hard question for me to answer. they are the two chairs of the budget committees. there is no question that chairman ryan and chairman murray will work with their leadership. done inment will not be isolation of their leadership. in the way that we look at regular order, they go to work to try to find a middle ground

to pass a budget that will be the blueprint for the rest of this year and maybe years to come. host: a policy question for viewers -- should any exempt when be tax- the company is holding trillions of dollars in debt? not know that any corporation is tax exempt. they do pay corporate taxes. i am not sure that is a relevant question. host: let's go to michael in california on our independent line. you are on with bill hoagland. caller: good morning. i heard bernie sanders state the other day that one in four corporations to not pay any taxes at all. spendingntries are money on education, health care, and infrastructure. we're are spending unbelievable

amounts on our military. do you think the military budget stamps in a time of food and meals on wheels? our economyping with education debts that are unbelievable. understand what senator sanders is saying. corporations do receive credits, deductions, exclusions that could result in them not having to pay their corporate income tax. i think one of the critical factors that congress can continue to address here is corporate tax reform. question, as it relates to defense spending, there is no question in my mind that additional reductions in defense spending are going to have to happen. they will have to be done in a way that focuses on a strategic goal of protecting this country going forward.

we're back to the same situation of balancing out spending reductions, whether in defense versus food stamps. we have to find a balance between all of our spending and stay on a path that is fiscally sound for the future of our children and grandchildren. the caller brings up for a sanders and an editorial of his from last week. do not cut the big benefit programs. we must not balance the budget on the backs of the most full marble people in our country. what do you think ernie sanders -- bernie sanders'role will be? case for will make the the whole marvel members of our society. i think that is a useful role but he plays. thatasic problem here is it is the entitlement programs and not the safety net programs.

it is the medicare and social security programs going forward we will have to address. chairman murray and chairman ryan understand that. bill we are talking with folkman. you can see his policy. he is there republican staff director on the senate committee from 1986 to 2003. he is answering your questions and taking your comments for the next 15 minutes or so. we will go to jack on our line for republicans. jack from hyattsville, maryland. good morning. hear thatam glad to they soundtee -- like a very long reaching organization. that is my main question. i have a couple of ideas. how far down the road do you look to come up with ideas?

everybody is trying to control the passage of legislation. people are not going to change the rules of our congress in the near-term for fear of losing out. if you look eight years or 10 things arethe road, costing people time and money. let's get rid of the filibuster. of about the simple idea it longer.et's make campaigns.for last i will hang up and listen. guest: thank you. one of the projects that we have underway is the democracy project. we call it the democracy project and we launch it earlier this

year. we're looking into specific issues that you have mentioned as it relates to government filibusters. campaign finance -- the issues of redistricting -- i agree with you. this is more than just spending and revenues. this is the structure and some of the issues that have created difficulties in coming to agreements going forward. at the same time, jack, i am an old senate staffer. i have to disagree with you on the filibuster. i do believe that the great deliberative body called the united states senate -- the filibuster does have a role to play. it founding fathers made clear that they expected there to be these kind of conflicts. they also expected the passions of the house to be cooled by the saucer of the senate.

how washington and jefferson like to refer to it. i think there is a role to the filibuster. i think that a lot of the issues you have raised are issues that are outside of the budget committee responsibilities. you have to go to the actual structure of the senate and the house. the formulation of the policy going forward would be benefited. i do agree with you, though. i think it would be nice if we could change the term limit in the house from two years to four years. that would require a change in the constitution. i think there is a lot of -- host: the term, not the term limit? guest: the term of the member of the house from two to four years. spent raisingis

money for the next election. they're not able to focus on the job that they were elected to come here to do. host: you say you are an old senate staffer. on your twitter page, you talked about the last time divided chambers came up with a budget agreement. can you talk about the history of that? guest: yes. let me try to explain it very carefully. createdet act that was in 1974 set up the process. there was a budget committee in the senate. they created the congressional budget office. that has been in effect for 30 and almost 40 years. every year we pass a budget and go to conference and agree to it. the last time there was no agreement was when we had a

divided congress and the house was under democratic control and the senate was under republican control. the last time we had an agreement with a divided congress was 19 86. here's a picture. what are we seeing? guest: you are seeing the chairman of the senate budget committee. the senate was under control of republicans at that time. he was the chairman of the senate budget committee. andsee myself on the right my deputy on the left. the staff director of the house budget committee. he is with chairman ryan. this was a negotiation. it was in june and i believe we got conference agreement by june 20 heard, 1986. , 1986. 23

the house was under the same control is the senate. we never had a situation where the house was republican in the senate was democrat and we achieved a budget agreement. this is a high hurdle. host: joseph on twitter asks about what you think the clinton tax rates would do to the national debt. some ofe did restore those tax rates back in january. we face the fiscal cliff act then. it would -- restoration going prior tohose tax rates the 2001 tax cuts would probably add revenues over the next decade. that would help the debt and the deficit. i would like to point out that to current number is close

$7 trillion. it aloneot do effusively raise revenues by going back to those rates. we need growth and we need spending reduction. hoagland of the bipartisan policy center is talking about these budget talks that are happening on capitol hill. the headline of the washington post on the day that they met last week -- diminished expectations. we will talk for the next five to 10 minutes on the subject and take your calls. charlie is up from florida on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you doing? for thea topic gentleman from the bipartisan center. i think bipartisanship is what we need. i would like to mention using the word balance. balance is needed. -- ihing that i do not have not heard yet, you talked about spending cuts and raising

revenue if push comes to shove -- but the elephant in the room is the problem with wealth distribution in the country. you cannot have a good economy and half of the people do not have money to spend. it is a consumer economy. andust ignore that fact allow the policies that have gotten us to this point -- the policies of the last 32, 33 giving money to the too big to fail banks, it is crazy. the right wing has been shoving -- thatryone's throats needs to be addressed. guest: thank you. the income distribution issue is difficult. we know that, on the basis of what we have seen, there has been a growing degree of inequality in this country. i would suggest that members of

congress are aware of this. it is part of the ideological differences that we have here. thato you grow an economy deals with the critical issues that you have mentioned in terms of inequality? my guess is that we do need to focus on those particular policies that grow the economy and create more jobs, create more income, and address specifically the type of concerns that you have about distribution of income. it is difficult issue, but it is not unrelated to what kinds of policies this congress considers. host: we have talked about the membership of this committee. there is a deadline for final recommendations on december 13. one of those members as tom cole, republican from oklahoma.

i want to ask you about what his role is in the budget conference. he wall street journal says is a guy with a large military presence in his district. it would be impacted by sequestration. he is an outspoken guy and willing to break with his party on occasion. what do you think his role will be? guest: i think over spent coal is a very thoughtful congressman who recognizes the concerns that we all have about the growing level of debt in this country. therefore, he will later critical role going forward with recommendations. i do think that recognizing that if there is no agreement, we that willa sequester go down to lower levels of spending for defense fund in mer 16th -- it does seem to that he will want to press for

some way to find additional revenues or additional spending reductions that will allow for us to avoid further cuts in defense. at least for 2014, going forward. he will play a major role in this discussion. host: the bipartisan policy center has a turn on their webpage that talks about what the cuts would be. toense cuts would come up $492 billion. also $492 cuts are billion. guest: over the next 10 years. the reductions that would take place would be about $50 billion. i think that is what the focus -- by the way, the president's , the house budget committee the senate budget, all have the same level of request for spending. the difficulty is that mr. ryan's budget would like to stay at sequester levels. he went up to the higher level,

but went down on nondiscretionary spending. what will be in conference here is how do you find a way to maintain the $552 billion in defense for next year? nondefense would be hurt the most going forward. host: bipartisan policy center is continuing to follow this subject. to focus will continue on the impact of the sequester that was released last week. we're looking at immigration reform, which is an important element for the future. we're focusing on housing issues going forward. we have a major effort under way in governance and democracy. there's a lot going on in the very active organization for a young, new organization. host: you can see all of that

g. upat bipartisanpolicy.or next, julie appleby will be joining us to talk about why some insurers are dropping coverage for some americans. and later, nick tomorrow's will join us to talk about the federal housing authority's request for a bailout. we will have all of that for you. first, a news update. >> is 8:29 eastern. rubio, and rono paul are lending their voices to the final days of the virginia governor's race. joe biden is out for terry mcauliffe. marco rubio and ron paul will appear at rallies for ken cuccinelli. the last minute campaigning comes ahead of tomorrow's election. campaignedbama

yesterday in support of terry mcauliffe campaign. today, he is at the white house and weighed in on the nondiscrimination act. in a blog post, he writes that in 2013, in many states, a person can be fired simply for being with the and or gay. it is wrong and it needs to stop. america,ited states of who you are and who you love should never be a fire-able offense. legislatione the would help the economy and jobs sector. it would end the don't ask, don't tell policy. this is being taken up today. watch live senate coverage at 2:00 eastern time. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. author and astrophysicist

neil degrasse tyson on america's call for engineers. >> as nasa goes, so too does that of america. then you doealthy, not need a program to convince people that science and engineering is good to do. papers.l see it on the there will be calls for engineers to help us go ice where there is liquid that has been frozen for billions of years. we will dig through the soils of mars for life. look at the nasa portfolio today. it has biology, chemistry, engineers,aerospace mechanical engineers -- all of the stem fields are represented in the nasa portfolio. the healthy nasa helps that. it is a flywheel that society

cap for innovation. airs programming about nonfiction authors. every weekday on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. look at are taking a the implementation of the affordable care act. we have had reporters from kaiser health. julie appleby is back to discuss the reasons why some and please have seen their plans canceled. this is a hot topic on capitol hill among some talking heads. let's discuss the mechanics at play here. why are some people receiving cancellation notices? who buyhese are people their own coverage because they do not get it through their jobs. these are folks who are small- business owners or self- employed. there are an increasing numbers of contract workers.

they buy their own. many farmers by their own. it is estimated that five percent of americans by their own coverage. many of them are getting these notices. we do not know exactly how many. many are getting notices saying that their policy will be discontinued by the end of the year and they need to enroll in a new policy. that is because many of these policies do not meet all of the requirements of the affordable care act. host: here are the numbers we are talking about. here's the story from today. at least 3.5 americans -- 3.5% of americans -- 3.5 million americans have had their policies canceled. guest: we're 14 million people who buy their own coverage in this country. tally ofnot an exact how money people have gotten these notices. in some states, the insurers are allowed to roll policies over. maybe the policies will not

expire until next year. we do not have a final number, but it is likely to be substantial. only wrote this up a couple of weeks ago, we had insurers telling us that anyone from -- arehere from 20 to 30% being canceled. it could be a substantial number of americans getting those notices. host: how are employers picking the ones to cancel? guest: insurers are looking at policies thatsing did not exist before march 2010. new policies are unlikely to be grandfathered. if they are not grandfathered and do not meet the requirements of the affordable care act, it is likely they will get a notice. before the affordable care act, insurers would discontinue policies. it was not unusual. they would discontinue product lines that were not profitable for them.

this is not unusual. what is unusual is the scope of this. have written that some consumer advocates are concerned that insurers are using these cancellations to target their most costly enrollees, correct? guest: that is what they are worried about, but they are taking unprofitable lines of business. insurers say that is not necessarily the case. they're watching out for that. there are some roles that they cannot just pick and choose certain people to cancel. they have to close an entire book of business. they cannot choose particular people, but entire lines of business. we did see some insurers canceling policies that went to people who were more sick. they were saying that those policies were not as comprehensive as the law requires. they canceled them. they're canceling those. somee also spoken with

insurers who say they canceled a profitable line of products. simply because it does not meet the standards of the law. the bank is going a lot of different ways. host: we want to hear of your stories on the subject. if this is happened to you, give us a ring. land, have an employer and you want to chat about it, . if you have an individual plan or your plan has been canceled, use the numbers on your screen. we will have those lines open for you to call in and ask julie appleby about this subject. stories about people getting their plans canceled and getting offered new plants with higher premiums. how much are we seeing of that happening?

guest: premiums are interesting issues. some people are indeed getting notices that say that their plan or a comparable plan will cost a lot more. some people are finding that -- that they are -- offsetting some of the cost. it varies. i spoke with one gentleman who had a policy that covered his wife and daughter. it was costing $336 per month now. somethingng up to 500- dollars. it is hard for him to understand why that is. i've heard about folks in florida who have been on the national news who had a policy that was only 50 dollars per month. it is now going up quite a bit. part of the reason for that is that these policies did not cover much. this did not cover

hospitalization, so they're canceling those policies. it really depends. your premium will depend on what policy you have now. there are a number of facts. host: we have one of those cancellation letters from blue cross lou shield. -- blue cross blue shield. that includends the aspects of the affordable care act will be canceled. a letter like this, what should they do? guest: they do not have to act right away. they should take the time to understand what they have purchased already, how much is their deductible, how much is that per person and for your

whole family? how much would you have to pay before the insurance kicks in? how much would you have to pay for the entire year? look at that, understand that, then see what your insurer is offering you. they may have something comparable, but double check. that is not your only option. you do not have to roll into another plan. you can go onto the state marketplace or onto healthcare.gov and look up other policies. healthcare.gov has had some problems. toy have made some changes the website where people can browse plans and get an idea or estimate on premiums. thaty experts say to do and maybe talk to an independent broker. get some help to understand this. i'm something comparable and enroll in that. byis ok -- if you enroll december 15, your coverage will start by january 1. host: joining us to answer your

questions. they're editorially independent from the kaiser foundation. they are not affiliated with kaiser permanente. julius is here to answer your questions on the subject. a have the lines set up little differently this morning. we will start with character from jonesboro, georgia. he is on the line for those with employer insurance. good morning. caller: i have a comment on the question. , in thent is that --0s, reagan got rid of the this was when they were trying to stop him from getting out of the fairness act. race from thea corporate types to try to stop this. -- the corporate

media has been out of control to try to brainwash the public. the republicans are like the liberal media. republicans protect corporations from taxes and regulation. host: what is your question on the subject? caller: corporate media helps out the republicans. republicans help them out. all media is republican media. anyway, on this point -- president obama said that if you like your plan, you can keep it. the corporate media is right around telling people that he lied. do they know that these people like having a plan that did not cover hospitalization, that have lifetime caps on it? --ngs of that nature apparently corporate media knows

that these people who are getting cancellations did like those plans. i am assuming that they did not like those plans. you pay for something and did not get anything back. host: he brings up the subject of the president's statement. the factmething that checker column of the washington post looks at. they gave the president a no a pinnochio-- rating. guest: we heard him in boston last week. he said that the vast majority of people who have health insurance that works can keep it. plans were not that effective and were not that helpful to folks. this is why this market was targeted by congress, specifically because it had some problems.

many people who buy their own insurance, for example, before the law, found that they could not buy insurance at any cost because they had condition. they were able to reach out to people who have health condition and perhaps exclude those people from coverage. some of these plans have limited benefits. i have read about lands that had $100 per day benefits. if you have ever been in a hospital, you know it cost more than $100 per day. these plans are going away, but some people actually do pick this coverage because they wanted. a $5,000 deductible because it comes with lower premiums. they have the money set aside in case they need to meet the deductible. they're not happy to see these plans go away. host: we have lines set up this morning for people who have had their plans canceled. brett is waiting from new york,

new york. caller: good morning and thank you very much for taking my call. first thing, i do not know what planet that last caller lives on. maybe they have affordable health care on his planet. a republican-controlled media, that is a first. my plan was canceled a few months back. my premiums were hiked up. it was disqualified from being grandfathered in. my health coverage was very good. i was very happy with the policy. i am not happy about being forced to sign into a program where i have to cover dental, pediatrics, birth control -- all sorts of services that i will never use. too, i have to sign up by september 15.

that no reports said one should go onto healthcare.gov for at least a month until they start to get these quirks ironed out. where thereray area will be a lapse in my coverage. this has never happened in my life. i find it very and there that we talk about this so evenly. you can sit here and dyslexic deflect a comment like the president lied. he did not tell the truth. there is a large segment of americans who will pay for that dishonesty. host: i will let you jump in here. sost: you live in new york, i think your state is doing its own exchange. you may have more luck getting on their exchange. should the administration have known that these policies would be canceled? a lot of experts say yes.

they should have known more about this because many of these policies were substandard. remove's a muster substandard policies. host: what is grandfathering? guest: if you had a plan that did not meet all of the standards, you could keep it. it was as long as purchased before march 2010. if it was purchased before march 2010, when the law was enacted, and no substantial changes have been made -- the rules decide what is a substantial change. if you have made a change in her co-pay or increased your deductible by 15% or more to keep premiums down -- many people do this to keep the premium down, that would kick you out of the grandfathered stand us -- status. host: what about the point about

paying for things like maternity coverage as a healthy young man? why was it written into the roles that you cannot find a plan without those things? guest: i'm getting a lot of questions about that. do i have to why pay for people who are sick? this is part of the insurance pool. this is part of the tension in this ball. the lawmakers decided that they wanted to create this minimum benefits package. it includes maternity care and prescription drugs and hospitalization. in order to make these plans comprehensive -- people can differ on what they think is a comprehensive package. this is what they decided. everyone will pay for it and it will spread the risk. he will never use maternity care, that is correct. he may have a wife or somebody who does use maternity care.

many women who use these policies will never be treated for part -- for prostate cancer. you do not pick and choose. insurance is for everybody. the affordable care act about the health of the people or about the overall financial health of the industry? where is the book russian mark -- or is it both? guest: it depends who you ask. of congress was to expand coverage. they expanded coverage to people who are uninsured. they wanted to make it easier for people who wanted to buy coverage to do that. congress did not want to go the route of making this a government run plan. they kept the marketplace the way it is. private insurers will offer this coverage.

they will get more business. it has gone both ways. host: we are talking to julie appleby of kaiser health. we're talking about health care cancellations that some individuals have received on some policies. we set up our lines differently in the segment. if you have an employer plan, you can give us a call at 202- 3880. if you have an individual plan or your plan was canceled, the numbers are on your screen. all others can call in at 202-5 waiting from oak hill, florida with an individual plan. go ahead. caller: i think they took the cookies out before they were baked on this issue. it seems to me that when they grandfathered in these policies, they made the change after that. it was several months after that. they made it almost impossible

for anybody to keep their plan. any adjustment -- it could be a minor just meant, even with an inflationary cost, they knew this was the way it was going to be. i have another situation as a medicaid person. my medicare has gone haywire. my deductible has increased, the amount of dr. care has been decreased, and the supplemental pushing haverp is increased tenfold. this is because of the obamacare regulations. she is trying to say that it is fine and everybody has to pay for pregnancy and prostate cancer, so it all works out -- that is a one payer system. if that is what they wanted to force people into, to make it such a mess that they will come ,ack with a one payer system

that is what they wanted in the first place -- i do not understand. going to gain from this? they are also issuing cancellation policies. host: kaiser health is a nonprofit news service. they are independent from the -- fromermanent tape kaiser permanente. they cover things like the health law, hospitals, doctors, insurance -- they have been helping us over the past couple of weeks to explain this law to folks. he brings up the medicare issue, if you want to touch on that. guest: mostly the law affects people in a couple of ways. one of the ways he may be talking about is slowing down the payments for medicare advantage. market,the private

private insurers offering medicare coverage to folks who sign up for it. it is an alternative to traditional medicare. the program is having some because in payments congress said that they were already paying more money than they paid for the traditional medicare program. they wanted to bring them closer into alignment. some insurers are probably raising premiums and doing things to make changes as a result. host: that's go to michael from delaware on our line for folks urer lands. caller: i have a couple of points. i'm not sure if this is a question. whether or not president obama lied, i do not believe that -- he is being very disingenuous with his statements about keeping policies if you liked

them. i think that the unanticipated result of all of this is going to be millions more people will lose their policies. they will jump ship from the democratic party and supporting president obama. republicans will get exactly what they wanted all along. in next year's midterm election and in three years at the presidential election -- the obama administration will be swept out of office. everyone will jump ship to the republican side to go back to before the affordable care act came through. -- this isn something that i cannot imagine anyone anticipated. . am retired when i retired, my employer sponsored plan -- my rates quintupled. what i wastimes now

paying when i was working. i got married after i retired. i am not allowed to add my wife to my plan. low minimum qualification plans and she just got the cancellation notice. i went online to try to sign her up for insurance. before andnsurance it was more than $3000 per month. -- her premiums were only five dollars per week. beings be me -- that is terminated. they say she might qualify for medicaid coverage. is anyone aware of the fact that you have to forfeit your income to the government? you can all make you $3500 per month. host: let's jump in. guest: he is in a situation with

retiree coverage. it sounds like your employer has increased the amount they were paying for that. it may not be unusual. many employers are required retirees to pay a cost of their insurance. for your wife, it sounds like she went from a plan that was synthesized -- that was subsidized by her employer, to paying the full amount herself. 100% of theaying cost of their insurance. when you're working, your employer picks up 70% or 80% of the cost. people have no idea how much it costs. they only pay a portion of that as an employee. it can be quite surprising to folks when they do find out about these markets. host: he brought up the issue that we talked about this

morning about whether people could keep their plans. it was the subject of the lead editorial in usa today. obama's promise is the headline there. below that is a piece from fred upton, a republican from michigan. he is the head of the energy and commerce committee. let people keep their coverage -- it talks about letting people keep their plans. page ofin the opinion the usa today. we are talking with julie appleby, taking your questions and comments about cancellation notices. whois on our line for folks have had their plans canceled. he is from new hampshire. good morning. caller: tank you for taking my call. i called on october 1 when this whole thing started. i was mentioning how the least expensive obamacare plan was $140 per month more than what we

are currently paying. we currently pay $90 per month. we have an $8,000 family deductible. it is my wife and i and we are in our 50s. we will not be eligible for any subsidies because the cut off for a couple is $6,000 or year. -- $60,000 per year. we make more than that. to what wee plan have now is over $1000 per month. we already hade, people saying these are substandard plans. we heard he had these mandates. you can keep your kids on until 26. we had mental health and hospitalization. we paid for all of that. that these are substandard plans -- that is why we have them being canceled.

these will be more affordable plans -- i do not understand what he considers affordable. this is just what is really upsetting. we were told that you could keep your plan and you could keep your doctor and you could save money. none of this is true. whatld just like to know people consider affordable. none of these plans are affordable. host: julie appleby? guest: a number of folks have e- mailed me are called me. they are talking about a similar situation. you have a high deductible policy right now. that was something that you and your family were very comfortable with. you thought that was a good plan and it helped to keep your premiums down. under the new law, i suspect that your plan -- the deductible and other out-of-pocket costs exceed the limit in the law. now you have to find a new plan

and you're finding that it is a lot of money. this is part of the tension in this law. a lot of folks are going to see that they are paying more. he raises a good point. why is this costing more? his state already required some of these mandates. what i am hearing from actuaries is that adding some additional benefits in lowering the deductible -- maybe the out-of- pocket max will go down -- but i and what ther part actuaries are telling me is that the insurers now have to take everybody. they did not have to take people with pre-existing conditions before. they could exclude their medical condition from coverage. starting january 1, the law says they cannot do that anymore. they are building into their rates the fact that they have to take all comers.

you and your wife are probably healthy, but you are now going to be more average. people who were healthier and younger may have lower rates. people who are older or sicker, those rates might adjust. it will bring everyone to more of an average. the insurers are deciding what they think their risk is instead of taking everyone and building it into the rates. it is making it difficult. kathleen sebeliust: asked about this at the energy and commerce committee hearing. want to get your thoughts on this. before, during, and after the law was passed the president kept saying if you like your plan, you can keep it, so is he keeping the promise? yes, he is.

>> what do you say to the 10,000 people in florida that cannot get up insurance? is he keeping his promise to them? they canirst of all, get health insurance. they must be offered new plans, new options, either inside the marketplace or if they do not qualify for a financial subsidy -- appleby am a what was your biggest take away from the appearance of kathleen civilians on the hill last week? i think this adds to the difficulties of the rollout. not only issues of the health care not going to blake but but issue of people keeping their health insurance plans. republicans are very upset about this. saying you have to get this health care website fixed.

has to roll out smoothly or will affect this as well. i think it is adding to the difficulties what the health care wall. guest host: a comment from e-mail. isir rights that this disingenuous to say someone with a pre-existing condition cannot get insurance does not answer the problem with those losing insurance that they have held for a very long time. wrong.-called items are seems like an excuse for health -- insurance companies to gouge citizens. the president lied. that is a comment from claire in michigan. richard of next from newport, florida on the line for folks who have individual coverage. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am calling for my son. he will turn it the in december. monthere paying $800 per

for both of them for coverage. they are empty-nesters. kids are out of the house. my son has just been notified that his treatment alone will be $1000 per month. they have higher incomes, so that is why they were notified the premium had increased. the thing that gets me, already state 30% tax bracket, and federal and other federal taxes that are kept under the blanket so to speak. now they have an increase in their premium, 2.5 times. i did not understand why congress, republican, democrat, and independents don't get together and get rid of this racket. the best description i have heard of obamacare. onust would like her comment

that situation. say congressot getting together anytime soon and agreeing on things. i think there will be a lot of discussion and debate. i do not see a lot of movement at this point to make any changes to the law. we may see this change if they do not get the health care website working by the end of the year. there may be more discussion about delaying other pieces of the law, extending open enrollment. i do not know. about theer point insurance rates, it would be interesting to know if your son has gone on and found these numbers or for someone else. it does sound a little higher. there may be other options. i have seen a lot of studies looking at prices. they were biting before, what kind of coverage. there may be well something.

there have been a whole bunch of studies that look at premium cost. they range all over the place. some people will pay more and some people will pay less. it depends what they bought before, what kind of subsidies they have. there was a study out this morning and wall street analysts are weighing and that there are zero premium fans available for a lot of people. of two 7 million people may have a zero rhenium plan. there are people like richard and florida very concerned the rates are going way up. there anything written into the law that protects people from getting gouged on some of the rates. guest: in the law it does say any increase over 10% per year has to be reviewed i regulators

and if they determine it was unjustified, they can hold it out and say it is unjustified. it is up to each state. they have varying ways they have to regulate health care costs. some states have given the power to reject rates out right and say it is too much. many states have not done that. depends where you live in some cases. if people are being overcharged -- if insurers have overestimated the number of sick people and raise the rates, there is a requirement insurers spend 80% of premium revenue and if they do not, they have to issue a rebate. if they have not estimated high enough, and they end up spending whole bunch more, you could see higher rates in 2015 and 2016. it really depends on what happens with who enrolls. host: 10 minutes left with julie appleby.

healthnews.org. twitter.ollow her on go to joe now from new york on the line for folks that have employer insurance. you are on with julie appleby. caller: i was going to say good morning but it is never a good morning. don't everybody out here know we are all stupid anyway? the governors and congressmen and senators do not understand these law. graduatesnely college 60 years old, we do not understand it. i had an accident, put on social security. i was not making enough money to

keep my kids with food in their mouths and roof over their head and pay my mortgage. i went back to work at a different job, got a college degree. got hurt again. worked for an ivy league college. they did not like the idea that i got hurt with them, to. so what did they do? they just did away with my job. away with your job, they do away with your insurance. they all actually talked me into cashing in my pension. so i have none of that. when peoplefense say this is an entitlement. 1968 for mysince soul so security benefits. >> let's let julie appleby

jumped in. talking about folks trying to understand this law. we have heard a lot about the navigators out there that were built into this act to help people understand it. where do the navigators stand right now? aest: every state has navigator. some of them have other ways you can get health insurance. there is a button you can push. it is different in different states. the 36 states decided not to do their own marketplace, exchange. fewer of the navigators of the states that did decide to do their own health care marketplace because they have more money to do it. the federal government did not have as much money, some not as many navigators.

this is really difficult. get on thee people website or talk to her broker they would have a better understanding. >> going to john now run new york, new york on the lined with books that have had their plans canceled. tell us about your situation. >> good morning. i have a unique situation. i had a terrific health-care plan that was canceled. it was a $2000 deductible plan. zero co-pay. terrific premium cap at about $9,000 total. letter from the insurance company basically saying because i am a sole proprietor and because i did not employ of another person, not

spouse, that the affordable care act automatically deems me not to be part of a group anymore and it makes me an individual. to go on toirect me the exchanges. it was very fortunate because i had a heart attack in march. every aspect of my bills were covered. all my doctors were covered. caren had psychiatric because i almost did not make it. i was really happy with what i had. they directed me on the plan to go into the exchange. it is strange because i have to be an individual now. cost me $4000 more with less than standard care that my insurance offered me because there are co-pays. higher deductibles. not really a very good,

effective law for me. what do you make of john situation? situation? beingsound like you are kicked over to the individual market and finding it more sensitive. some people are running into that situation. there are winners and losers and john sounds like you bought to come up with more money for his plan. the flipside of that is people like john who could not buy coverage before will now have the opportunity to do that because insurers cannot turn them away. part of the disruption of the market. a difficult architect. congress did target this for changes. some people are experiencing the changes. lucy on the line for individual exchanges.

good morning. julie said there are winners and losers, and i guess i am one of the losers. i liked my doctor and plan. i guess some in congress did not like i plan and doctor. my insurance is scheduled to be canceled in december. i have never had a lapse. i had a good plan. now i am going to a subsidy plan with a high deductible. is not available in the state. situation to an hmo where i will need a doctors referral all the time. i am a nurse.

i did not have a high deductible and i am going to have a high deductible. .aying for things i do not need it is funny that i go on the site every once in a while. last time i went on it said they have a countdown clock, 100 52 days left that we have to get days to get2 service and yet the service is not even working. i have been a junkie since the days you had a c-span school bus that would go around. i had a lapel pen you used to if you can get someone else from kaiser so we had a different opinion and viewpoint on this. differentave reporters from kaiser health news to talk about this subject every monday. we appreciate the subject.

guest: sounds like a person who is in the health-care plan and likes it. she said she did not have a high deductible plan. i suspect this was purchased after march, 20 10 and insurers decided this is a block of businesses they no longer want anymore. host:enior health -- julie appleby, always appreciate you coming on. up next, doing our weekly "your they" segment focusing on federal housing administration. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> international news this hour. demonstrations today outside the former u.s. and the siena ron's capital. tens of thousands of people packed the streets in tehran in the biggest anti--american rally in years. these take place every year to mark the anniversary of the 1979

takeover that followed the islamic resolution -- revolution. this is the largest in years. meanwhile, in egypt, the post president mohamed morsi appear for trial. this was his first public appearance since he was ousted on july 3. mohamed morsi and 14 other defendants in the case could ace the death penalty. -- based the death penalty. the wall street journal reports eric schmidt is slamming the nsa for reportedly spying on the data centers, dolling it

potentially illegal. he is registered complaints with the nsa, president obama and members of congress. we will hear more about the nsa and privacy issues at 10:00 eastern when we bring you live coverage of the president privacy and civil liberties oversight meeting. it is actually starting right now live on c-span to or watch it later anytime on our website at www.c-span.org. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> what is the most important issue congress should consider an 2013? that is the question for the c- span video camera competition. make a 5-7 minutes documentary that include c-span video for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. this year we doubled the number of winners of total prizes. need more information? go to studentcam.org. we bring public

affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and offering complete, gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service upon -- private industry. created by the public industry and funded by your local cable or caddo -- satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. al"shington journla continues. host: each week we take a look at how your money is being spent and put to work. joinseek, nick timiraos, us from new york to talk about the federal housing administration which for the first time asked for and received a transport -- transfer from the treasury department to stabilize its position. it came out to one point $7 billion. for those folks that may not be familiar with the fha, what is

it and why didn't need these funds? >> the federal housing administration is a major gearing towards mortgages for single-family -- guarantee your of mortgages in the united states. it has played a big role since the housing bust deepened beginning in 2007 when private mortgage capital over traded. the fha went from a very small player to a phenomenally large player during the bust. if you have gotten a mortgage over the past few years and have not had a five percent or 10% down payment, there is a really good chance your loan was backed by the fha. insures loans that meet standards from banks, largest bank of america down to your small, local bank or credit

union. they have played a really important role keeping the housing sector afloat really so people could still get work ages. from 2007-2009 when home prices were falling a made a lot of loans. riskier loans. they had nowhere to go and had to sell the house and ended up in foreclosure. host: is this the fha paying from 2007-2009 or do they continue to be in a bad eye natural position because we see this bailout the past month? what you're seeing:

now is the result of the decisions made five or six years ago. this has always been an agency that has returned money to government. what has happened now, and a gets a little bit wonky. you get in principles of federal budgeting of the as -- fha is required to have on hand every year enough cash to pay all estimated losses. since the fha is carrying -- guaranteeing loans, they have to estimate over it dirty years how much money do we expect to lose on the loans expecting her home prices are going, interest prices going, what defaults to like. then they say we think we will lose x amount of money so they have to have that money on hand. congress says you need to have a two percent capital ratio. you have to have enough cash on hand up to two percent of the insurance you have. percentl below the two

for a couple of years ago but were still running on fumes. now they have gone naked it. 35 billion inhave the bank right now. they are not rogue but the most shows theyection will lose more over the 30 years of the business they have on hand of the $33 billion they have in the think right now. that is what necessitated the $1.7 billion appropriation from the treasury on october 1. host: i use the term bailout. was this technically a bailout? you could call it that. the obama administration will object to the term. they have never needed an

appropriation before. now they do. is there a chance it will go to the fha, said in the reserve and never spend it? yes. there is a chance. you get into semantics over what is a bailout and what is not. i think it is fair to say the fha has required a small for now bailout. this will determine how the economy fares here. the fha is heavily exposed. a biggernot have exposure during the boom. expect to see more losses. if you look at the loan since 2010, those loans reforming dramatically better. the best performing loans the fha has made in at least a generation. there are signs of optimism that if the housing market gets better, if the economy continues to grow, maybe they cannot run the problems.

host: the fha has almost quadrupled the four percent share from 2007. some stats according to bloomberg. if you want to talk about the fha, you have questions, give us a ring for the next 35 minutes. we will talk about this. democrat can call in -- republicans (202) 737-0002 independence (202) 628-0205 outside the u.s. (202) 628-0184 well folks are calling in, has congress done anything to put new requirements on fha to make sure they do not ask for future bailouts or transfers in the future? probably the most

important steps have been taken by the fha. the fha took them in the first half of 2009 in the first half of 2010. they have kicked a number of lenders out of the program. they have tightened up standards. they have raised the insurance premium a number of times. the way the fha makes money is they charge insurance premiums to borrowers. you are paying for the fha insurance. they have continually increased premiums to try to boost reserves, to keep reserves from going into the red. so a lot of the most important changes have been made by the fha. congress has been concerned but also made a number of things that cuts in the other direction. one example would be 2011, the maximum loan limit, they can only guarantee loans up to a certain limit and varies by

county. set to loan limits were fall, and congress raised them to a higher level than what is allowed by fannie mae and freddie mac, the other large government-backed mortgage giant. have this perverse scenario where the fha, which has always guaranteed loans, maximums have been smaller. now they were able to guarantee loans in some parts of the country like southern california and new york that were larger. congress has made a few changes more recently. the fha has asked for additional flexibility to take a number of steps to tighten standards, particularly around reverse mortgage programs. this is the program were senior citizens can pay cash through an annuity or lump sum on the reverse mortgage. the reverse mortgage problem has been a very serious issue for the fha. they have lost more money on that fan on the standard

mortgage insurance program. they are really the easier standard in the mortgage market. but not good outstanding credit. the fha might be your only option. you want to make sure there is credit for the housing market, that there are people able to buy and sell homes. harder to do that if folks cannot get a mortgage. they really have to thread the or the fha commissioner said feels more like washing on the blade of a knife. any decision they make in one

direction could put more risk on taxpayers but in the other direction could hurt the housing market. how secure is the fha future? an editorial calling it a homewrecker. an opinionl from -- piece from " the guardian." that piece notes -- that is just this past month. our folks on capitol hill calling for an end to fha? guest: no one is calling an end fha because people recognize

the housing market, for as hard as it is to get a loan, at least user complaints, whether or not those concerns are legitimate, i think they probably would be if you did not have the fha. i think both of those are from edward pinto, a former chief credit officer at fannie mae. he has become a leading vocal critic of the fha out there. he is done and analyses that the in certain communities fha is creating a cycle of light were loans made over the past few years are more likely in foreclosure. if it had not been for a lot of the crazy private-label marketers, the subprime and other toxic mortgages made

during the bubble am arguably we would not have as much of a housing bust and the fha would not have to run to the vacuum where home prices were already falling. no one else extending credit. had to takey they some of the steps they took because the housing market panic would have been so much worse if they had not been there. it is a cause for concern right now that the fha has depleted its reserves and is in that stepion of no matter what to take, they are going to be either putting more risk on taxpayers or jeopardizing the housing recovery. writes -- on twitter we have callers as well on the subject.

you were on with nick timiraos. caller: i have a couple of questions. when did fannie and freddie get taken over by the central government? guest: september 2008. caller: how much of been bleeding? guest: at the worst of the crisis they had cost taxpayers over 100 $80 billion. since then they have paid back a lot of dividends to the treasury. in the next week or two they may report additional profits that would mean they have effectively paid back everything that they borrowed during the crisis. there is another kind of turnaround story we have been

following here. below fannie mae and freddie mac or completely separate? then i have a quick comment. are they together or separate agencies now? they are separate. the fha is a government agency. fannie and freddie are still technically private companies that were taken over by the government in 2008 through a legal process known as conservative ship. they have a government conservator am a little bit like a receiver standing over them. to government has war and acquire up to 80% of shares. the government is kind of the majority owner. they are a little bit different situation between fannie mae and freddie mac. i know folks that have been in the mortgage industry during this whole six years that

the bubble burst. fha has been the savior of the whole thing because of the fact that you could not get a mortgage anywhere. no one with gary and teeing, banks could not buy them. one was guaranteeing them. so fha has actually been the only bright light in any of the housing market. any mortgage broker if they could still sell a mortgage, that is who they put it into. on the fannie mae and freddie the what ever happened to lawsuits where those guys were making an ungodly amount of money where we had to take over and become of custodian? take the agency over. lawsuits of fannie mae and freddie mac, there are a lot and hard to keep track of. there was one filed after the fannie mae accounting scandal in 2004.

those were recently settled. the charges against the controllerthe cfo, -- though charges were dismissed comptroller -- those charges were dismissed by the judge over the years. there were pages of filings in court. there is ongoing litigation against what happened in 2007- 2008. shareholders were upset. they felt they were misled to invest in fannie mae and freddie mac before they were taken over. the sec has also had an ongoing lawsuit against the former executives from 2008. >> mark now on the line for independence from the end, virginia. this is just a general question.

is fha more concerned with keeping people in their homes or getting existing homeowners to keep their homes? guest: that is a great question. i think you would probably have to ask officials at fha. i think they would probably say they are concerned with both, but it is true that the loan modification policies, unlike the rest of the industry, the fha always had it built in, loan modification processes. what happened after the bubble, the per hop -- the policies were not as well suited to the crisis we were in. they do not allow for principal reduction for example. modifications probably have not performed as well as the private sector. i think they would say they are extremely concerned with making sure there is countercyclical credit out there.

the folks who will lend money when no one else will because the way you can exacerbate a downturn is by having nobody lending. caller: the reason i am asking is because inter-traits in las vegas, a third of all houses were for close on or something ridiculous. there were sot many homes. does not seem new home should be the focus of the agency of the federal housing administration but finding ways to get people into existing homes. i think that is a fair point but one thing that should be noted, a lot of the we have seen, the vast majority were from loans that did not go into the fha. if you look over the past six years, most of the subprime

loans that were made, those were by and large not fha loans. you ended up in a situation, and las vegas was a great example where you had foreclosures and would have had even more if there were not people on the other end able to buy them because that home prices would go down even more. you get into a downward spiral. you have more for closers that leads to more price decline it that people cannot get credit, you have more price declines which can lead to more foreclosures. someone has to step in and make calls and say what will we do about this? i do not think anyone would argue the fha approach to the crisis has been textbook perfect. i think if you look at which loans going into foreclosure based early on, it was not usually fha. host: we are talking with nick timiraos about the federal

housing administration. he writes about mortgages and housing as the lead writer for the journal development blog. he is with us to answer your questions and comments. how is the private sector involved with fha? a good question. the private sector is involved because they make fha-back mortgages. you have the fha. they have thousands of pages of rules governing what is acceptable for a loan that is insured by the fha. you have a number of entities responsible for policing the private sector here. is one.

they have become much more aggressive on overseeing them and handling foreclosures. actived has a fairly review board that makes sure that the company to participate in the program are complying with rules. they have a process for making sure lenders can see the ratio relativefault levels to what is normal for the industry average. lenders that have a higher ratio, higher than average default level relative to their peers can get flagged for review by the fha. a note on twitter sums up the situation in which we are talking about in which the fha got a transfer to the tune of $1.7 billion.

going to susan now from san antonio, texas. on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am wondering if it is possible for the fha on their own without isgressional interference this possible without congressional interference? i am pretty sure it is. congress sets a minimum. in 2008 the minimum was three percent. the fha cannot go below that.

in 2010 and they did that work credits were below 580. they said you would have to have a 10% down payment. to my knowledge they have never had that high of a down payment standards, at least back to the 1960s. fha could do that. they could save five percent across-the-board. i do not think they want to because they are concerned about the impact of the ability of first-time buyers. there is a concern that raising a down payment higher would hurt folks who do not have a lot of inherited wealth or cube would've wealth, including minority households. cumulative wealth. the fha has permanent and indefinite budget authority. bypass goinghaving

to congress. a direct line to treasury. their loans are bundled into other mortgages and sold off as securities through a different .overnment agency investors buy those bonds expecting to have the full faith and credit of the united states behind them. if there were any doubt as to whether fha would have the money to make cold -- hole on the credit risk, then it could cause problems with the way they trade. so this avoids having any question in the capital markets as to whether the government will make good on its promises. mark from township, new jersey. in morning. " theh nick timiraos from

wall street journal." caller: good morning. chased up going with before they want to jpmorgan chase. then they changed to jpmorgan chase and still make payments through that. letter sayingd a the letter that came was from fannie mae, saying they were now the holders of my mortgage but my payments would still go to jpmorgan chase. is ahas got me confused fannie mae is holding my mortgage, why am i paying jpmorgan chase? guest: that is a great question. i do not think there is many people realize how common that is. the reason for that is in the united taste we have a very unique mortgage market where is you go to your savings and loans, your mortgage stays with the local inc..

in the united states we have a market, $10ortgage trillion. the banking sector and are cannot, unless it were to grow by leaps and bounds cannot support that. we have a securitization of mortgages. takeit means is banks will mortgages and sell them to other investors in what is called a secondary mortgage market. a $10 trillion market for buying and reselling of american mortgages. fannie mae and freddie mac are the two largest players in the market as they are buying mortgages, guaranteeing them so investors will buy the securities knowing if the loan defaults, they do not have to the credit risk. they only have to worry about what happens to interest rates. a little bit easier to predict how it will perform. what this means for you is if

you went to your bank, it may be went to chase or somewhere else and you got the mortgage i met there is a good chance if your loan can be sold to fannie mae or freddie mac or another investor willing to buy it at a good return, chase a not want to keep it on its books. complexmortgages are instruments. who wants to have a loan that has a dirty year to charity? they may sell it to fannie mae and freddie mac. what they will continue to do is they will continue to collect your monthly mortgage payments, known as servicing. every month you send your mortgage payment to chase him at bank of america or wells fargo. what they are doing is turning around and take a small fee for themselves, and then they will remit the rest of the payment onto to the investor, which in ber cast -- case would fannie mae. very common. how the mortgage market has

developed. it is what enables americans to have a relatively unique contract, 30-year fixed rate mortgage you can pay off without having to face the prepayment penalty. only a couple of other countries in the world or the 30 year mortgage is the north star the mortgage market. vikki on the line for independence. you are on with nick timiraos. caller: good morning. i was wondering, i am in the pre--foreclosure state. my lender i try to work with, but unfortunately if it was not for an fha loan, i would not in mye helped refinancing. through the program that just started, it is called streamline . it started in july. i was wondering if you could tell the viewers about that

that has saved me from foreclosure. there are a couple of different programs. if you already have an fha mortgage you can do a streamlined refinance where minimal documentation because the fha already has the risk. they are on the hook for it. they will let you refinance, lower the rate. you can keep your old insurance premium. so what they are really doing is allowing you to cut your payment by dropping your rate. kind of a standard rates return finance. in other cases i may -- think maybe it will to refinance you into an fha-backed mortgage. in some cases they will have to cut the principal. in other cases if you have a little bit of equity in your house, another bank they not

refinance you but the fha program will take the loan. fannie mae and freddie mac have done the same thing. if you have a loan that is backed by fannie mae or freddie mac and are underwater and have a $270,000 mortgage and now your house is only worth 150 or 200,000, if you are correct on your payment -- say you have a 5.5% interest rate, now you can refinance the loan. if your loan is already backed by fannie mae and freddie mac then whatever interest rates are today. you might be able to get a 4.5% rate. that is the program that has been able to reach hundreds of thousands of folks over the past a lot ofhas benefited people who sound like they might have been in your situation. in terms of questions what programs the fha is involved

with, between -- jean commented -- guest: it sounds like that is probably separate. fha is all about people who own their own homes. host: talk about the history of fha. it got its start during the historical events depicted in that movie. guest: it grew out of the great depression. he did not have 30 year mortgages in this country at the time. a lot of people have balloon loans. it would come due in five years. if your property value was below you could not refinance. unless you had stacks of money

in a mattress and could sell something to pay off the loan, you went into foreclosure. we had tens of thousands of foreclosures during the great depression for that reason. the fha was created to put a floor in the housing market. insure loans -- that the banks would make. there was a problem in the mortgage market. not too many investors were coming in and willing to buy the loans. the government decided to charter on top of the fha mortgage company that would come in and do that. four years later in 1938 fannie mae was worn. they later took on the nickname it is known today as fannie mae. a lots of the mortgage-backed stocks we have seen throughout the recent crisis, they played similar, differently-structured roles during the great depression.

those sprinkler systems to fight these kinds of fires were initially set in place during the great depression, though they have evolved a great deal as the mortgage market has. a few folks with questions for you. we will try to run through them in the last nine minutes. john is up from riverside, california hear jen good morning. really appreciate this young fellow. really explaining things so i can understand. i am getting old. i am outliving my money. i have been thinking about getting a reverse mortgage. i have substantial equity in the home.

would you speak about the government guarantee. guest: the government guarantee sounds good to you but does not really mean a whole lot to you. whoever makes the mortgage probably will not a lot to it. almost all reverse mortgages since 2008 and 2009 have a government guarantee. if you are thinking about getting a reverse mortgage and they say government guaranteed, i would not say it is a safe product if the government says i should get the mortgage. reverse mortgages can be a good tool or some. maybet, someone who is feeling cash poor but have a lot of equity in your house. however, there have been downsides to reverse mortgages that have come out over the past

few years. so you really should sit down with a financial planner, someone at your bank, ideally someone who does not -- who does not make their living selling reverse mortgages. a lot of times you may not get unbiased advice from a company or broker who makes their living selling reverse mortgages. you should really talk it through with a financial planner because there are other ways you can go. it could be seen as a more dramatic step. this has been an official to some. host: michael on the line for democrats. you are on the line with nick timiraos. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] i got a loan through the banks and was in the foreclosure process and was told i could fill out the papers and try to get refinanced.

i was getting calls from people to tell me to make my mortgage payment, so i came up an agreement with them that i would pay more than the allotted amount to try to catch up. but in the interim what i found out is i was just making the payments to make the taxes. they still ended up for closing on me at the and of the six- month time. i was foreclosed on. the trying to figure out do banks really want you to pay the mortgage or try to catch up on it? is theyas experiencing wanted me to foreclose anyway so they could collect the fha

insurance that guaranteed the loan amount. host: any thoughts on michael situation? unfortunately, and is on flickr really difficult situation, but unfortunately that has happened to thousands of homeowners out there. the process we have had for modifying mortgages, we have never been through this kind of environment before where we have faced millions of foreclosures and banks have had hundreds of thousands of people asking for help. the banks were simply not good at handling the volume. they had never faced this volume before. one of them sound like what you described where they would let you make a trial modification for three months, and if you made the payment, they were supposed to convert modification to permanent modification. very good not always

at managing the processes. have is very automated. when you introduce new programs like this, it has been very difficult for banks to manage them effectively. a lot of people have fallen through the cracks. unfortunately this has resulted in foreclosures that maybe could have been avoided. an individual rights in, there was an insurance company most farmers use com farmers union. wonder what happened to that? guest: that is something i would have to look up. i am not familiar with the farm credit system. jean on the independent line. you were on with nick timiraos. caller: thank you to c-span for taking my call. i am 73 years old. i am trying to think back in my

, what really led to the bursting of the real estate what happened, what government agency loosens up the withrement to qualify toxic mortgages? and -- input to allow this to happen it? did the dodd-frank bill comes up for this housing starting -- started to collapse or during? what part did dodd frank play in there is a lot there. was 2010.

it came after the crisis and did not have much to do with the crisis. we could spend another hour talking about what caused the crisis. i think what you had is everyone bought into the view we should have more home ownership. on top of that, it went beyond homeownership and came to taking cash out of your houses, refinancing and drawing running -- usingding money,'s our homes as piggy banks. this was something everyone embraced. congress embrace wealth creation and getting more people into housing so everyone was in part responsible for this and a very unsatisfactory answer. maybeh more time we could sift out some of the different culprits, but overall what you will see as government standards lapsed a little bit in the 1990s

and continuing to relax them but the private sector came in and turned the dials all the way down. they were securitizing, bundling up and selling very risky mortgages. the reason they did that is because the loans that aaa ratings. investors thought a were as good as the loans we had always had in the market. you just had a lot of really poor decision making because people thought home prices would always go up. and they stopped going up, that is when we have the crash. >> the housing reporter for " the wall street journal", nick .imiraos onlly appreciate you coming to talk about the fha. that will be our show for today. we will see you back your a 7:00 tomorrow on " washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] -- virginiacovenant governor candidates are getting help from national figures. marco rubio is in virginia on behalf of republican, ken cuccinelli. virginians go to the polls tomorrow to elect a new governor. 's finaluccinelli campaign rally will be with ron paul. turnout could be as low as 30% of registered voters. associated press reports that the